General CV related discussions.

[KuyAurelian]

F.D.Roosevelt is pure edited*. Why do I even bother pressing the AA-sector key when it does nothing to prevent a strike?
Same squadron of dive bombers flew three strikes (would have been four were I not dead by then), with the AA-consumable activated throughout.

And the Thunderer isn't even a poorly AA-armed BB.

Seriously, something needs to be done. Starting from the fact it makes 0 sense that CVs can turn their squadrons around faster than the ships they're attacking can recover their AA priority sector!
How is that a counter-play if it's still on cooldown when the next attack comes in, because the squadron barely took any damage from the first?!

Seriously, this is utter garbage.

 

edit: language please

[Aethervoxx]

3 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

you are neglecting the fact that after rework the AI loses your planes casually

Ya, very 'casually'. This, ofc, doesn't matter due to practically endless planes in the hangar.

50 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

plane reserves may not be technically infinite, they are practically due to having massive reserves and the general weakness of AA.

Yes.

You two appear to have a difference of opinion, which is fine, although differences of opinion may not change or may, as the case may be.

I believe that El2aZeR is more correct in his opinions on both the farce reworked CVs & on the RTS CVs.

Although WG will likely never return RTS CVs, I'm all for RTS CVs.

Apart from what WG did to CVs with the rework take a look at what happened to the AA parameters. It wasn't just CVs that WG managed to wreck.

[1MajorKoenig]

21 minutes ago, Aethervoxx said:

Ya, very 'casually'. This, ofc, doesn't matter due to practically endless planes in the hangar.

“Practically” is exactly the point - that is not the case as I just put up the calculation. It is more or less similar to the RTS deck numbers with an odd duck here and there (Hosho)

 

21 minutes ago, Aethervoxx said:

You two appear to have a difference of opinion, which is fine, although differences of opinion may not change or may, as the case may be.

Which is also fine. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion.

 

Regardless I wanted to correct the common misconception on “infinite” planes which is a nice fairytale but not much more than that.

 

 

[1MajorKoenig]

1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

Kekw.

Fine, I'll do it later.

Although the question would be how to count a one time consumable in this case. Probably the number in a fighter squadron once or so. 

 

1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

And in the rework the attack wing isn't at risk unless all reserves are shot down. The effect is still largely the same. I still fail to see the relevance.

Well not really. An attack squadron has at least 3 wings - a lot of times even more. The only time you could broadly compare the scenarios could be if you only attack with the last wing or with the last two. 

[El2aZeR]

5 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

It is more or less similar to the RTS deck numbers with an odd duck here and there (Hosho)

 

Kekw.

Same parameters as before, except this time with fighters added in. Without rework CV hull fighters though as these serve no utility against surface ships.

 

Hosho -  29 (13 VF / 16 TBs) vs 75 (29 RF / 23 DBs / 23 TBs)
Ryujo - 48 (10 VF / 19 DBs / 19 TBs) vs 99 (27 VF / 27 RF / 22 DBs / 23 TBs)
Shokaku - 72 (24 VF / 24 DBs / 24 TBs) vs 129 (45 VF / 30 RF / 26 DBs / 28 TBs)
Hakuryu - 100 (30 VF / 30 DBs / 40 TBs) vs 157 (63 VF / 27 RF / 30 DBs / 37 TBs)

 

Langley - 30 (10 VF / 10 DBs / 10 TBs) vs 73 (27 RF / 23 DBs / 23 TBs)
Independence / Ranger - 37 (12 VF / 13 DBs / 12 TBs) vs 104 (27 VF / 27 RF / 27 DBs / 23 TBs)
Lexington - 70 (18 VF / 36 DBs / 16 TBs) vs 127 (45 VF / 30 RF / 26 DBs / 26 TBs)
Midway - 116 (45 VF / 40 DBs / 41 TBs) vs 144 (63 VF / 27 RF / 30 DBs / 24 TBs)

 

 Saipan - 48 (24 VF / 24 TBs) vs 94 (45 VF / 18 RF / 15 DBs / 16 TBs)
Enterprise - 96 (43 VF / 28 DBs / 25 TBs) vs 185 (90 VF / 39 RF / 26 DBs / 30 TBs)
Graf Zeppelin - 72 (16 VF / 29 DBs / 27 TBs) vs 118 (45 VF / 25 RF / 22 DBs / 26 TBs)
Kaga - 85 (28 VF / 14 DBs / 43 TBs) vs 176 (45 VF / 35 RF / 49 DBs / 47 TBs)

 

Yeah, not looking so good now, doesn't it?

 

18 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Although the question would be how to count a one time consumable in this case. Probably the number in a fighter squadron once or so. 

 

Each consumable summons separate fighters which are just automatically lost once they expire. Losses suffered by previous squadrons have no impact on subsequent ones and multiple can exist at the same time. Therefore all fighters have to be counted separately as they are in fact separate entities.

 

19 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Well not really. An attack squadron has at least 3 wings - a lot of times even more. The only time you could broadly compare the scenarios could be if you only attack with the last wing or with the last two. 

 

You can in fact attack only with the attack wing - which is equivalent to attacking only with a single squad rather than your entire strike package. Bringing more squadrons in RTS and thus putting them into harms way is the equivalent to bringing more than one attack wing. In both iterations you're only endangering as many planes as you're attacking with, nothing has changed in that regard.

 

As such I still fail to see the relevance.

[Aixin]

Vor 20 Minuten, 1MajorKoenig sagte:

 

 

Well not really. An attack squadron has at least 3 wings - a lot of times even more. The only time you could broadly compare the scenarios could be if you only attack with the last wing or with the last two. 

Well think about it. Would it be better to rebalans aa and let the full squadron attack cuz it would mean shot down planes would matter?  I don't really enjoy the reworked cvs anymore tbh. After a certain number of games it becomes a bit boring. I never had the patience to learn RTS cvs so I can not speak about them (cv player) perspective. But rn I would like a class which had a bit more to offer then they have rn. 

[1MajorKoenig]

47 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Yeah, not looking so good now, doesn't it?

VF? You count the one time consumable on Shokaku 27 times...? You could count them as one squadron of - six? But no matter how - these are not 27 planes my dude 

 

51 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Hakuryu - 100 (30 VF / 30 DBs / 40 TBs) vs 157 (63 VF / 27 RF / 30 DBs / 37 TBs)

So TBs and DBs are about the same as said - give or take.

 

Now - RFs are about the same as fighter bevor - and if you want you can add a squadron on top. 
 

That would be 

 

30/30/40 vs (27+6)/30/37

 

Counting every single consumable fighter is intentionally misleading 

[1MajorKoenig]

50 minutes ago, Aixin said:

Well think about it. Would it be better to rebalans aa and let the full squadron attack cuz it would mean shot down planes would matter?  I don't really enjoy the reworked cvs anymore tbh. After a certain number of games it becomes a bit boring. I never had the patience to learn RTS cvs so I can not speak about them (cv player) perspective. But rn I would like a class which had a bit more to offer then they have rn. 

I think it is not so much about AA but more about creating non-stop action and reduce the idle time en route instead. 
 

But yea I would appreciate if losses would matter and could on the other hand be avoided. I don’t like spammy mechanics 

[arquata2019_]

4 ore fa, WarDax ha scritto:

I wonder if it would be possible to organize or spread the word of a campaign "Lets all focus on sinking CV's this weekend! Even our own!"

Kill all CV players.

 

Huge penalties I guess, but don't know, anyone know what the penalty is for sinking a team cv? Aside from someone getting angry at you?

i sunk 6 (enemies, near 7) since 12nd december :D

[El2aZeR]

44 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Counting every single consumable fighter is intentionally misleading 

 

1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

Each consumable summons separate fighters which are just automatically lost once they expire. Losses suffered by previous squadrons have no impact on subsequent ones and multiple can exist at the same time. Therefore all fighters have to be counted separately as they are in fact separate entities.

 

Wrong, not counting them as individual planes is subverting the truth since you can actually score that many kills. Shooting down one consumable fighter squad has absolutely no impact on any other following squad. If they were only 6 like you say then you'd only need 6 kills to deprive the reworked CV of its entire fighter complement which is obviously not the case.

 

Unless I suppose you only want to count squad size instead of total reserves for RTS CVs as well, which drastically reduces their fighter count too.

[arquata2019_]

12 ore fa, El2aZeR ha scritto:

 

 

Wrong, not counting them as individual planes is subverting the truth since you can actually score that many kills. Shooting down one consumable fighter squad has absolutely no impact on any other following squad. If they were only 6 like you say then you'd only need 6 kills to deprive the reworked CV of its entire fighter complement which is obviously not the case.

 

Unless I suppose you only want to count squad size instead of total reserves for RTS CVs as well, which drastically reduces their fighter count too.

you smart boy

[WarDax]

12 hours ago, arquata2019 said:

i sunk 6 (enemies, near 7) since 12nd december :D

Great. The problem is of course wandering of by yourself not helping out the team as much as possible otherwise... that could cause some bad blood, even worse than BB camping/sniping.

[arquata2019_]

6 minuti fa, WarDax ha scritto:

Great. The problem is of course wandering of by yourself not helping out the team as much as possible otherwise... that could cause some bad blood, even worse than BB camping/sniping.

you're asking too much now, then i wont hunt anymore other cancer

[WarDax]

Na, thats fine... I'll do it, but at the risk at getting yelled at, someone will eventually always yell at someone for some reason every few battles....

 

I case they want to complain and beat me up my address is 10 Downing Street, London.

[Kerrow]

so, 243 pages in, has a WG employee, other than a moderator going "hurr, durr, language please" been in this thread?

 

 

[arquata2019_]

Alle 10/3/2020 alle 20:36, CptBarney ha scritto:

if they gimp yorkie i will scream.

they will

[arquata2019_]

16 minuti fa, Kerrow ha scritto:

so, 243 pages in, has a WG employee, other than a moderator going "hurr, durr, language please" been in this thread?

 

 

absolutely not :D,

they don't care about forum, or the games themselves afaik

[arquata2019_]

8 ore fa, WarDax ha scritto:

10 Downing Street, London.

Wat?!

[callumwaw]

On 12/16/2020 at 7:15 AM, Zuihou_Kai said:

they are capped. They don't regenerate on infinite. 

The battle lasts only 20minutes you know? 

You're missing the point.  

[Yosha_AtaIante]

19 hours ago, arquata2019 said:

absolutely not :D,

they don't care about forum, or the games themselves afaik

are u sure about that? 

[arquata2019_]

7 minuti fa, Zuihou_Kai ha scritto:

are u sure about that? 

ehm umh.... omh.... amh....

let's ignore what i said, ok?

[AndyHill]

On 12/17/2020 at 9:35 PM, 1MajorKoenig said:

So TBs and DBs are about the same as said - give or take.

 

Now - RFs are about the same as fighter bevor - and if you want you can add a squadron on top. 

I must be missing something, because it seems that you're comparing RTS fighters to current rocket planes? What am I missing here?

[1MajorKoenig]

7 minutes ago, AndyHill said:

I must be missing something, because it seems that you're comparing RTS fighters to current rocket planes? What am I missing here?

No - other way around: I compare TBs to TBs and DBs to DBs.

 

And the numbers are pretty similar.

 

Now there were playable fighters in the RTS model and now we have playable rocket planes for ground strikes. These numbers are also broadly similar - different purpose though.

 

And what’s not really comparable is this stupid fighter cancel each other out consumable. That’s just new 

[DFens_666]

12 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

No - other way around: I compare TBs to TBs and DBs to DBs.

 

And the numbers are pretty similar.

 

Now there were playable fighters in the RTS model and now we have playable rocket planes for ground strikes. These numbers are also broadly similar - different purpose though.

 

And what’s not really comparable is this stupid fighter cancel each other out consumable. That’s just new 

 

So if either version loses all their DBs and TBs, reworked ones still have rocket planes to attack ships.

Case closed?

[1MajorKoenig]

9 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

So if either version loses all their DBs and TBs, reworked ones still have rocket planes to attack ships.

Case closed?

What should that close? It closes bull - if the RTS carrier loses all strike planes he can still shut down the enemy CV entirely.